UPdate: I changed the title from "Clinton rude to audience member in Iowa" to the current title, because the voter actually says
She tried to ... accuse me of using someone else's words and being stupid. And that offended me
thanks for your "concern"
2nd UPdate In light of ?Petraeus' talk of the Iranian Republican Guard I hope everyone will realize how close to war we are again, and I hope that this becomes HRC's Dean Scream for this election. We can't take anymore war talk.
This is a classic example of how a candidate who loses touch with real people can simply deny them their point of view or the validity of their opinion.
The response was basically you don't know what you are talking about and who put you up to this
From WAPO
Rolph asked Clinton to explain her Senate vote Wednesday for a resolution urging the Bush administration to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. Rolph interpreted that measure as giving Bush authority to use military action against the Iranians.
Nice question, why would anyone think that? Maybe because Senator Webb said so:
Those who regret their vote five years ago to authorize military action in Iraq should think hard before supporting this approach. Because, in my view, it has the same potential to do harm where many are seeking to do good.
What is Hillary's response?
"let me tell you that the premise of the question is wrong and I'll be happy to explain that to you",(She) then pointedly said to Rolph that her view wasn't in "what you read to me, that somebody obviously sent to you."
Thats right, if a pesky voter asks her something - tell them they are wrong and accuse them of being fed information from a rival.
Yes, if someone disagrees, they are from a rival, not an actual voter with a mind.
Good thing Rolph did not sit in silence.
"I take exception," Rolph interjected. "This is my own research."
When the event was over, Rolph was surrounded by reporters and said he felt the need to stand his ground when Clinton challenged him: "She tried to ... accuse me of using someone else's words and being stupid. And that offended me. I felt the need to defend myself in view of that kind of comment."
Had he come to the meeting supporting any candidate? "I came here with an open mind, that's why I had to ask this question. By asking this question, that was going to be the defining moment for me. But it has been a defining moment," Rolph said.
When I interviewed David Bonior about being the House Majority Whip for the dems under Bill Clinton, he told me that it was
very hard to go against the president of your own party
and that is how Bill Clinton was able to ram through NAFTA, a bill most Democrats opposed.
I have said that if Bill didn't listen to us then, why would Hillary?
This is the kind of the proof I have been looking for to back up that statement.
To think, us pesky voters might get in the way.
We can't have another corportist democrat in the White House.
If you want to change business as usual in Washington, do like I am doing and support John Edwards for President.
What he learned from his mistake for the first Authorization on Iraq as compared to Hillary Clinton.
We (Clinton and Edwards) learned a very different lesson from that. I have no intention of giving George Bush the authority to take the first step on a road to war with Iran.
They can choose a Republican who wants to continue the war or a Democrat who wants to end the war. We can’t just be a little bit better than them. We have to be very clear that voters have choices in this election.